Since I'm still busy with other things, I don't have time to respond in full. Thus, I offer this short analysis now and will respond to the rest of the conversation if I think it necessary (and as time permits).
Matthew Cart: "Just because someone does not become born again and saved while
living on the earth does not mean he is going to be separated from God forever
burning for eternity."
It seems that Matthew thinks this works in his favor. If so, the method of reasoning we see being employed here is unfortunate. However, it is by no means rare. For example, you can see my discussion here with a Christian who did not believe that homosexuality was in any way genetic. Why did she not believe homosexuality was genetic? Because no one proved to her that it was genetic. Ergo, in her mind, it must be the case that it is not genetic. It goes like this: "No one has shown that X is not the case. Therefore, I am warranted in my belief that X is the case."
When such a method occurs, the person employing it can feel quite good about himself if all he does is show that the opponents conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. They seem to be under the illusion that if they can say "but not necessarily" that they have thereby secured their own position.
But maybe I'm jumping to conclusions with Matt. After all, he doesn't say that this thereby proves his position. So, what leads me to believe that he is in fact employing this irrational method? Namely, the fact that Matt doesn't even attempt to go on and support his own position. This could either mean that (a) he doesn't care to argue his own position, (b) he doesn't think it needs to be argued (for the aforementioned reason), or that (c) he doesn't have the space or time to argue it.
(a) seems highly unlikely to me as Matt is the one who started the entire discussion to begin with and, furthermore, from the fact that he keeps attempting to demonstrate that his opponents argument do not follow through.
(c) would be a silly or insufficient reason. He could easily have the space if he didn't quote so much from his opponents. If nothing else, he could give a thumb nail sketch of what an argument might look like. And, judging by his frequent responses, he certainly has the time.
Therefore, (b) seems likely to me. Of course, If I'm wrong Matt is free to comment and tell me otherwise.
Matthew Cart: "The work of Christ was absolutely neccessary but wasn't to keep
us from burning in torture forever. Jesus came to save us from our sins, not
from hell. There is no other way to be saved but by Jesus. He also came to bring
his kingdom into the world, which he did and it is expanding. He stripped Satan
of his power and triumphed over the powers of evil by his death on the cross."
Under Matt's view, sin does not lead to wrath or punishment from God and it definitely does not lead to "Hell" (despite the Bible's clear statements to the contrary. For example, Matthew 5:29; 13:41,42; Rom. 1:18; 2:5-8; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; Col. 3:5,6; and by implication: Lk 17:2; Jn 3:36). One starts to wonder whether Matthew has ever read the NT. Perhaps, though, Matt is just having a hard time drawing the logical connection between sin and sin's consequences. If so, reading the verses I quoted above would certainly help him. Given Matt's view, why would anyone want or need to be saved from sin?
Someone called "Moses" asked Matt: "if the end is ultimately the same for all men, even those outside of Christ, then the work of christ was not necessary. In fact, why not speak like the other universalist heathens of Paul's day and say "let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Matt responded, "The context and verse says "If Christ is not risen" then let us eat drink and be merry, etc. Christ is risen." But he has completely missed the force of Moses's question. If Matt is a universalist, then it really doesn't matter if I obey Christ now or do not obey Christ now. Of course, Matt may say "But following Christ has benefits now..." But this is to misunderstand the hedonist's objection. For example, even IF Christ is not risen, we could still have temporary benefits of following his pious example and, yet, Paul still thinks they have a valid objection. The objection "let us eat..." has force because whatever benefits or punishments may come are only temporary. Ultimately, we're all in the same boat so we might as well live it up. Thus, Matt's view is subject to the same criticism as those who say Christ is not raised: let us eat, drink, and be merry.
Matt: "The main point I want to emphasize here is that the entire doctrine you
are promoting is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the Old Testament. There is
never a warning of being judge eternally and forever given to Adam, Moses, Noah,
Abraham (dealing w/ Sodom), etc. We need to first understand the Old Testament;
we cannot simply pull verses from the NT and interpret them in light of
nothing."
Here we finally have something that looks like an argument. I will restate the argument in a better form and put next to the premises Matt's words that I take to support my reformulation:
P1: The OT is our starting point. ("We need to first understand the OT")
P2: The NT can only reaffirm or clarify by expansion what the OT teaches. ("we cannot simply puss verses from the NT and interpret them in light of nothing")
P3: The OT does not teach a doctrine of Hell. ("the entire docrine [of Hell]... is mentioned ... nowhere in the OT")
C: Therefore, the NT cannot teach the doctrine of Hell. (implied by entire conversation)
Of course, P1 presents several problems for any Christian. If we start with the OT, in the sense that would be relevant to Matt's argument, then serious problems arise with how the NT authors make use of the OT ("out of Egypt I have called my son."). How can Matt start with the OT and arrive at Matthew's (the gospel writer) conclusion?
P2 creates, taken with P1, creates even more problems for a Christian. Take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. Robert Reymond states, as anyone who has surveyed the evidence must, that "It is unlikely that anyone familiar with or reading only the Old Testament today, with no knowledge of the New Testament, would conclude that within the inner life of the divine being resides a real and distinct personal manifoldness" (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 207). Reymond goes on to quote B.B. Warfield who admits, "The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament..." (Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, 22).
It seems then that Matthew's "main point" that he "wants to emphasize" is a rather embarrassing one. I suggest he hide this point rather than emphasize it, or, better yet, ditch it all together. In Matthew's ad hoc attempt at finding an argument against the orthodox doctrine of Hell, he has put himself in a very dangerous position. But this really shouldn't come as a surprise since, '"Denial of [the] teaching [of hell] has, until recently, been limited almost exclusively to cultic or quasi-cultic groups... Furthermore, this movement away from the traditional doctrine of hell is part and parcel of a larger evangelical "megashift" away from other standard orthodox teachings — such as the substitutionary atonement, sin, and judgment — in favor of so-called "new-model" views. In other words, the rejection of eternal punishment is but one incident in the larger campaign to construct a kinder, gentler theology. " (Alan W. Gomes (Ph.D in historical theology from Fuller Theological Seminary) "Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One," Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, 14ff.)
Beyond this, if Matthew had perhaps read the OT a little better he would find that there are passages which, at least prima facie, support the doctrine of Hell (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2). Thus, even if we grant Matthew P1 and P2 we may still show P3 and the conclusion to be false.
Matthew: "Concerning the teaching of hell, this is foreign to the OT and NT
translations mistranslate and put "hell" instead of the grave, ghenna, etc. You
can read about this in depth here http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm"
I'm glad to see that Matthew at least took a little time to read up on the position he is defending. I can only wish that he took a little time to read the responses from the other side. If he has, he doesn't show any evidence of it. But it isn't even necessary to do research of the proponents of the orthodox view to see the ridiculousness of the word-concept or etymological fallacy, it should be obvious upon a little armchair reflection.
Still, I'm always amazed to see the Universalist or Annihilationist march out the "Gehenna/Tartarus/etc." argument as though everyone is unaware of it and no response has ever been put forth. If nothing else, it shows the shallow research skills that Universalists/Annihiliationists exert in examining the issue. I could quote from dozens of proponants of the orthodox position which have answered this issue. Take for example, C. Hodge, who uses for his example Annihilationists (who commit the same argument in principle as the Universalists) "The question is not, What certain words may mean? but, What were they intended to mean as used in certain connections? ... [The Annihilationist argues that] we are to go to our classical dictionaries to learn the meaning of the words they use... That the rule of interpretation here laid down is obviously incorrect, and its application would reduce the doctrines of the Bible to the level of heathenism. If Greek words as used in Scripture express no higher ideas than on the lips of Pagans, then we can have only the thoughts of Pagans in the Bible... the "usus loquendi" of every language varies more or less in different ages, and as spoken by different tribes and nations. Every one admits that Hellenistic Greek has a usage distinguishing it from the language of the classics. The language of the Bible must explain the language of the Bible. It has a "usus loquendi" of its own... The Scriptures written in the language of men use words as men are accustomed to use them, literally or figuratively, and in senses suited to the nature of the subjects to which they are applied" (Syst. Theo., 3:872,3).
Or, take for example what S.D.F. Salmond says in his entry on Hell in A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898):
"The Teutonic base [for "hell"], hal = hide, akin to kal, kar (in the older form), is supposed by Skeat to be a 'development from a root skar, of which the meaning was to cover.' Etymologically, therefore, the term denotes the covered, hidden, unseen place... In this employment of the word the AV translators were justified so far by the sense which it had in their day, and by the fact that it was applied to the world of the departed generally in the Creeds, in Spenser, in Chaucer, in mediæval miracle and mystery plays, and in Old English religious poetry... The word 'hell' is used (3), and more properly, as the equivalent of γεέννα, the designation of the place and state of the just retribution reserved for the finally impenitent after the judgment...
[Gehenna] under Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon was made the scene of the gross and cruel rites of heathen worship, idolatrous Jews passing their children through the fire there to Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31). Hence king Josiah, when he put down the idolatrous priests who had burned incense to Baal under the apostate kings of Judah, also 'defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech' (2 Kings 23:5, 10). It was also declared by Jeremiah that the place should be 'no more called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter' (Jeremiah 19:6). After its pollution by the pious son of Amon it became an object of horror to the Jews, and is said to have been made a receptacle for bones, the bodies of beasts and criminals, refuse and all unclean things (so Kimchi). The terrible associations of the place, the recollections of the horrors perpetrated in it and the defilement inflicted on it, the fires said to have been kept burning in it in order to consume the foul and corrupt objects that were thrown into it, made it a natural and unmistakable symbol of dire evil, torment, wasting penalty, absolute ruin. So it came to designate the place of future punishment, and the Talmudic theology spoke of the door of hell as being in the valley of Hinnom (Barclay, City of the Great King, p. 90)" (ibid, emphasis mine).
For Matthew to simply march out the old arguments shows that he's either not read much of anything from the other side or else he's hopping that his audience hasn't so that he can capitalize on their ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment